On the Two Lines in the Revolution

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 48, November 20, 1915.

      Published according to the text inSotsial-Demokrat.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages415-420.Translated:Transcription\Markup:Zodiac,B. Baggins,D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

InPrizyv[1](No. 3), Mr. Plekhanov attempts to present the
    fundamental theoretical prohlem of the impending revolution in Russia. He
    quotes a passage from Marx to the effect that the 1789 Revolution in France
    followed an ascending line, whereas the 1848 Revolution followed a
    descending line. In the first instance, power passed gradually from the
    moderate party to the more radical—the Constitutionalists, the
    Girondists, the Jacobins. In the second instance, the reverse took
    place—the proletariat, the petty-bourgeois democrats, the bourgeois
    republicans, Napoleon III. “It is desirable,” our author infers,
    “that the Russian revolution should be directed along an ascending
    line”, i.e., that power should first pass to the Cadets and
    Octobrists, then to the Trudoviks, and then to the socialists. The
    conclusion to be drawn from this reasoning is, of course, that the Left wing
    in Russia is unwise in not wishing to support the Cadets and in prematurely
    discrediting them.

Mr.Plekhanov’s “theoretical” reasoning is another
    example of the substitution of liberalism for Marxism. Mr. Plekhanov reduces
    the matter to the question of whether the “strategic
    conceptions” of the advanced elements were “right” or
    wrong. Marx’s reasoning was different. He noted a fact: in each case
    the revolution proceeded in a different fashion; he didnothowever
    seekthe explanationof this difference in “strategic
    conceptions”. From the Marxist point of view it is ridiculous to seek
    it in conceptions. It should be sought in the difference in thealignment of classes. Marx himself wrote that in 1789 the French
    bourgeoisie united with the peasantry and that in 1848 petty-bourgeois
    democracybetrayed the proletariat. Mr. Plekhanov knows Marx’s opinion
    on the matter, but he does not mention it, because he wants to depict Marx
    as looking like Struve. In the France of 1789, it was a question of
    overthrowing absolutism and the nobility. At the then prevalent level of
    economic and political development, the bourgeoisie believed in a harmony of
    interests; it had no fears about the stability of its rule and was prepared
    to enter into an alliance with the peasantry. That alliance secured the
    complete victory of the revolution. In 1848 it was a question of the
    proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. The proletariat was unable to win
    over the petty bourgeoisie, whose treachery led to the defeat of the
    revolution. The ascending line of 1789 was a form of revolution in which the
    mass of the people defeated absolutism. The descending line of 1848 was a
    form of revolution in which the betrayal of the proletariat by the mass of
    the petty bourgeoisie led to the defeat of the revolution.

Mr.Plekhanov is substituting vulgar idealism for Marxism when he reduces
    the question to one of “strategic conceptions”, not of the
    alignment of classes.

Theexperience of the 1905 Revolution and of the subsequent
    counter-revolutionary period in Russia teaches us that in our countrytwolines of revolution could be observed, in the sense that there
    was a struggle between two classes—the proletariat and the liberal
    bourgeoisie—for leadership of the masses. The proletariat advanced in
    a revolutionary fashion, and was leading the democratic peasantry towards
    the overthrow of the monarchy and the landowners. That the peasantry
    revealed revolutionary tendencies in the democratic sense was proved on amassscale byallthe great political events: the peasant
    insurrections of 1905-06, the unrest in the army in the same years, the
    “Peasants’ Union” of 1905, and the first two Dumas, in
    which thepeasantTrudoviks stood not only “to the left of
    the Cadets”,but were also more revolutionarythan the
    intellectualSocial-Revolutionariesand Trudoviks. Unfortunately,
    this is often forgotten, but still it is a fact. Both in the Third and in
    the Fourth Dumas the peasant Trudoviks, despite their weakness, showed that
    the peasant masses wereopposedto the landed proprietors.

Thefirst line of the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution, as deduced
    from the facts and not from “strategic” prattle, was marked by a
    reso]ute struggle of the proletariat, which was irresolutely followed by the
    peasantry. Both these classes fought against the monarchy and the
    landowners. The lack of strength and resolution in these classes led to
    their defeat (although a partial breach was made in the edifice of the
    autocracy).

Thebehaviour of the liberal bourgeoisie was the second line. We
    Bolsheviks have always affirmed, especially since the spring of 1906, that
    this line was represented by the Cadets and Octobrists as asingleforce. The 1905-15 decade has proved the correctness of our view. At the
    decisive moments of the struggle, the Cadets, together with the Octobrists,
    betrayed democracy and went to the aid of the tsar and the landowners. The
    “liberal” line of the Russian revolution was marked by the
    “pacification” and the fragmentary character of the
    masses’ struggle so as to enable the bourgeoisie to make peace with
    the monarchy. The international background to the Russian revolution and the
    strength of the Russian proletariat rendered this behaviour of the liberals
    inevitable.

TheBolsheviks helped the proletariat consciously to follow the first
    line, to fight with supreme courage and to lead the peasants. The Mensheviks
    were constantly slipping into the second line; they demoralised the
    proletariat by adapting its movement to the liberals—from the
    invitation to enter the Bulygin Duma (August 1905), to the Cadet Cabinet in
    1906 and the bloc with the Cadetsagainstdemocracy in 1907. (From
    Mr. Plekhanov’s point of view, we will observe parenthetically, the
    “correct strategic conceptions” of the Cadets and the Mensheviks
    suffered A defeat at the time. Why was that? Why did the masses not pay heed
    to the wise counsels of Mr. Plekhanov and the Cadets, which were publicised
    a hundred times more extensively than the advice from the Bolsheviks?)

Onlythese trends—the Bolshevik and the Menshevik—manifested
    themselves in the politics of the masses in 1904-08, and later, in
    1908-14. Why was that? It was because only these trends had firm class
    roots—the former in the proletariat, the latter in the liberal
    bourgeoisie.

Todaywe are again advancing towards a revolution. Everybody sees
    that.Khvostov himselfsays that the mood of the peasants is
    reminiscent of 1905–06. And again we see the same two lines in the
    revolution, the same alignment of classes, only modified by a changed
    international situation. In 1905, the entire European bourgeoisie supported
    tsarism and helped it either with their thousands of millions (the French),
    or by training a counter-revolutionary army (the Germans). In 1914 the
    European war flared up. Everywhere the bourgeoisie vanquished the
    proletariat for a time, and swept them into the turbid spate of nationalism
    and chauvinism. In Russia, as hitherto, the petty-bourgeois masses of the
    people, primarily the peasantry, form the majority of the population. They
    are oppressed first and foremost by the landowners. Politically, part of the
    peasantry are dormant, and part vacillate between chauvinism (“the
    defeat of Germany”, “defence of the fatherland”) and
    revolutionary spirit. The political spokesmen of these masses—and of
    their vacillation—are, on the one hand, the Narodniks (the Trudoviks
    and Social-Revolutionaries), and on the other hand, the opportunist
    Social-Democrats (Nashe Dyelo, Plekhanov, the Chkheidze group, the
    Organising Committee), who since 1910, have been determinedly following the
    road of liberal-labour politics, and in 1915 have achieved the
    social-chauvinism of Potresov, Cherevanin, Levitsky, and Maslov, or have
    demanded “unity” with them.

Thisstate of affairs patently indicates the task of the
    proletariat. That task is the waging of a supremely courageous revolutionary
    struggle against the monarchy (utilising the slogans of the January
    Conference of 1912, the “three pillars”), a struggle that will
    sweep along in its wake all the democratic masses, i.e., mainly the
    peasantry. At the same time. the proletariat must wage a ruthless struggle
    against chauvinism, a struggle in alliance with theEuropeanproletariat for the socialist revolution in Europe. The vacillation of the
    petty bourgeoisie is no accident; it is inevitable, for it logically follows
    from their class stand. The war crisis hasstrengthenedthe
    economic and political factors that are impelling the petty hourgeoisie,
    including the peasantry, to the left. Herein lies the objective foundation
    of the full possibility of victory for the democraticrevolution in
    Russia. There is no need here for us to prove that the objective conditions
    in Western Europe are ripe for a socialist revolution; this was admitted
    before the war by all influential socialists in all advanced countries.

Tobring clarity into the alignment of classes in the impending
    revolution is the main task of a revolutionary party. This task is being
    shirked by the Organising Committee, which within Russia remains a faithful
    ally toNashe Dyelo, and abroad utters meaningless
    “Left” phrases. This task is being wrongly tackled inNashe
    Slovoby Trotsky, who is repeating his “original” 1905
    theory and refuses to give some thought to the reason why, in the course of
    ten years, life has been bypassing this splendid theory.

Fromthe Bolsheviks Trotsky’s original theory has borrowed their
    call for a decisive proletarian revolutionary struggle and for the conquest
    of political power by the proletariat, while from the Mensheviks it has
    borrowed “repudiation” of the peasantry’s role. The
    peasantry, he asserts, are divided into strata, have become differentiated;
    their potential revolutionary role has dwindled more and more; in Russia a
    “national” revolution is impossible; “we are living in the
    era of imperialisnu,” says Trotsky, and “imperialism does not
    contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to
    the bourgeois nation.”

Herewe have an amusing example of playing with the word
    “imperialism”. If,in Russia, the proletariat already
    stands contraposed to the “bourgeois nation”, then Russia is
    facing asocialistrevolution (!), and the slogan “Confiscate
    the landedestates” (repeated by Trotsky in 1915, following
    the January Conference of 1912), is incorrect; in that case we must speak,
    not of a “revolutionary workers’” government, but of a
    “workers’socialist” government! The length
    Trotsky’s muddled thinking goes to is evident from his phrase that by
    their resoluteness the proletariat will attract the “non-proletarian
    [!] popular masses” as well (No. 217)! Trotsky has not realised that
    if the proletariat induce the non-proletarian masses to confiscate the
    landed estates and overthrow the monarchy, then that will be the
    consummation of the “national bourgeois revolution” in Russia;
    it will be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and
    the peasantry!

Awhole decade—the great decade of 1905-15—has shown the
    existence of two and only two class lines in the Russian revolution. The
    differentiation of the peasantry has enhanced the class struggle within
    them; it has aroused very many hitherto politically dormant elements. It has
    drawn the rural proletariat closer to the urban proletariat (the Bolsheviks
    have insisted ever since 1906 that the former should beseparatelyorganised, and they included this demand in the resolution of the Menshevik
    congress in Stockholm). However, the antagonism between the peasantry, on
    the one hand, and the Markovs, Romanovs and Khvostovs, on the other, has
    become stronger and more acute. This is such an obvious truth that noteventhe thousands of phrases in scores of Trotsky’s Paris
    articles will “refute” it. Trotsky is in fact helping the
    liberal-labour politicians in Russia, who by “repudiation” of
    the role of the peasantry understand arefusalto raise up the
    peasants for the revolution!

Thatis the crux of the matter today. The proletariat are fighting, and
    will fight valiantly, to win power, for a republic, for the confiscation of
    the land,i.e.to win over the peasantry, makefulluse of
    their revolutionary powers, and get the “non-proletarian
    masses of the people” to take part in liberatingbourgeoisRussia frommilitary-feudal“imperialism”
    (tsarism). The proletariat will at once utilise this ridding of bourgeois
    Russia of tsarism and the rule of the landowners, not to aid the rich
    peasants in their struggle against the rural workers, but to bring about the
    socialist revolution in alliance with the proletarians of Europe.

[1]Prizyv(The Call)—a weekly published in Paris by
    the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, from October 1915 to March
    1917. The reference is to Plekhanov’s article “Two Lines in the
    Revolution”, published in this newspaper on October 17, 1915.